I spent some time in college translating the new testament from ancient greek, and there are many portions that can be translated with opposite meanings. Finding an "accurate" translation is impossible, as much of the translation is subjective.

Ok, I don't have time to get to all of these, but will start with the first two...

First example:Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." vs. accounts of the death penalty and killing in battle.

The first hint is that this is using the King James Version. Most other English versions translate 'kill' as 'murder' (NIV, ESV, NRSV to name a few). The word in hebrew is ratsach and indeed, the correct translation here is murder, which is different from killing in general. See also http://jpfo.org/rabbi/6th-commandment.htm

Second example:Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness." and Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

Bearing false witness is about lying in a court of law which has implications of injustice, this is not about lying in general.

The Proverbs 12:22 is exactly what I was talking about, taking verses out of context. If fact, this isn't even a complete verse:

The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

We should not deceive each other. saphah - speech and sheqer - deceit. The Hebrew sheqer is most often used in the context of bearing false witness or in things like business dealings...it's lying within the context of civil society. Hence it would be perfectly acceptable (expected even) to deceive an enemy in wartime. Even if this could be interpreted as against lying in general, it's important to note that the LORD is addressing humans whereas in the case of I Kings 22:23 this is God sending one of his elohim (spiritual being or angel) from the divine council to achieve his will on earth, and a similar thing is occuring in II Thessalonians 2:11. Sorry if it's offensive, but there are different rules for God carrying out his will for the world vs. humans on a social level.

Hang on. It's important to deceive one another during war time? War time? Christ taught a message of extreme pacifism:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

- Luke 6:27-31

That's not even shrouded in confusing old fashioned terms, it's very direct and straight forward. No believer in Christ can go to war, because he's busy turning the other cheek and loving his enemies. How exactly are you going to war as a Christian? How do you kill those you're supposed to love?

Israel existed as a nation for a long time before the time of Jesus. Yes, they had wars. Things like the Ten Commandments and the Law were about how the Israelites were to establish a just society - it's not about geopolitics. By the time of Jesus the Jews are living under the oppression of the Romans. Jesus did not come to establish a theocracy, he started a subversive movement that undermined the power structures while still submitting to their authority (e.g. "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." Matthew 22:21). It's a nuanced view of government power vs. personal agency that was the reality - submit to their rule (pay taxes) but only God is worthy of your worship (don't worship Caesar, as was customary).

With that in view, is it ok that the Allies deceive Nazi Germany on multiple occasions? Germany had declared war on the US, this wasn't your neighbor down the street suing you. Can Christians in good conscience join the military, what if you're conscripted, or what if your taxes are used to fund war? There's a spectrum of responses, and I would say it is highly dependent on the specific details involved. Personally, in certain situations I would be okay with being conscripted (well, not okay with it, it would suck, and I'm probably too old now), but in other cases I would be willing to be imprisoned if necessary to avoid participating in something I thought was wrong.

So, as a Christian . . . when Jesus explicitly tells you to love your enemy and turn the other cheek, you are OK with being conscripted to kill others? Is there a Jesus quote I'm not remembering where he said "but not for Nazis" or "you can ignore anything I say if your government tells you to do it"?

You have just demonstrated my point beautifully. Interpretation of the bible and biblical message is largely up to the person reading it, and someone who has decided on a course of action will find something in the bible to support what he believes . . . even if it quite clearly goes against very straight forward and uncontroversial passages from the bible.

If someone's interpretation leads them to complete pacifism then I respect that view. I said I would be ok with conscription under certain conditions. The second gulf war, no. WWII, yes, because of the extreme injustice the Nazis were perpetrating. I tend to take the righteous personal conduct interpretation of that passage. Of the four common interpretations, all move people away from interpersonal violence within society, and away from taking vengeance.

Right. A valid interpretation is that Jesus is saying to never engage in violence. Another valid interpretation is that Jesus is OK with you killing Nazis for your government. Both valid, both totally contradictory.

If you can't see the contradiction here, there's not much point continuing the conversation.

I spent some time in college translating the new testament from ancient greek, and there are many portions that can be translated with opposite meanings. Finding an "accurate" translation is impossible, as much of the translation is subjective.

Ok, I don't have time to get to all of these, but will start with the first two...

First example:Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." vs. accounts of the death penalty and killing in battle.

The first hint is that this is using the King James Version. Most other English versions translate 'kill' as 'murder' (NIV, ESV, NRSV to name a few). The word in hebrew is ratsach and indeed, the correct translation here is murder, which is different from killing in general. See also http://jpfo.org/rabbi/6th-commandment.htm

Second example:Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness." and Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

Bearing false witness is about lying in a court of law which has implications of injustice, this is not about lying in general.

The Proverbs 12:22 is exactly what I was talking about, taking verses out of context. If fact, this isn't even a complete verse:

The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

We should not deceive each other. saphah - speech and sheqer - deceit. The Hebrew sheqer is most often used in the context of bearing false witness or in things like business dealings...it's lying within the context of civil society. Hence it would be perfectly acceptable (expected even) to deceive an enemy in wartime. Even if this could be interpreted as against lying in general, it's important to note that the LORD is addressing humans whereas in the case of I Kings 22:23 this is God sending one of his elohim (spiritual being or angel) from the divine council to achieve his will on earth, and a similar thing is occuring in II Thessalonians 2:11. Sorry if it's offensive, but there are different rules for God carrying out his will for the world vs. humans on a social level.

Hang on. It's important to deceive one another during war time? War time? Christ taught a message of extreme pacifism:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

- Luke 6:27-31

That's not even shrouded in confusing old fashioned terms, it's very direct and straight forward. No believer in Christ can go to war, because he's busy turning the other cheek and loving his enemies. How exactly are you going to war as a Christian? How do you kill those you're supposed to love?

Israel existed as a nation for a long time before the time of Jesus. Yes, they had wars. Things like the Ten Commandments and the Law were about how the Israelites were to establish a just society - it's not about geopolitics. By the time of Jesus the Jews are living under the oppression of the Romans. Jesus did not come to establish a theocracy, he started a subversive movement that undermined the power structures while still submitting to their authority (e.g. "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." Matthew 22:21). It's a nuanced view of government power vs. personal agency that was the reality - submit to their rule (pay taxes) but only God is worthy of your worship (don't worship Caesar, as was customary).

With that in view, is it ok that the Allies deceive Nazi Germany on multiple occasions? Germany had declared war on the US, this wasn't your neighbor down the street suing you. Can Christians in good conscience join the military, what if you're conscripted, or what if your taxes are used to fund war? There's a spectrum of responses, and I would say it is highly dependent on the specific details involved. Personally, in certain situations I would be okay with being conscripted (well, not okay with it, it would suck, and I'm probably too old now), but in other cases I would be willing to be imprisoned if necessary to avoid participating in something I thought was wrong.

So, as a Christian . . . when Jesus explicitly tells you to love your enemy and turn the other cheek, you are OK with being conscripted to kill others? Is there a Jesus quote I'm not remembering where he said "but not for Nazis" or "you can ignore anything I say if your government tells you to do it"?

You have just demonstrated my point beautifully. Interpretation of the bible and biblical message is largely up to the person reading it, and someone who has decided on a course of action will find something in the bible to support what he believes . . . even if it quite clearly goes against very straight forward and uncontroversial passages from the bible.

If someone's interpretation leads them to complete pacifism then I respect that view. I said I would be ok with conscription under certain conditions. The second gulf war, no. WWII, yes, because of the extreme injustice the Nazis were perpetrating. I tend to take the righteous personal conduct interpretation of that passage. Of the four common interpretations, all move people away from interpersonal violence within society, and away from taking vengeance.

Right. A valid interpretation is that Jesus is saying to never engage in violence. Another valid interpretation is that Jesus is OK with you killing Nazis for your government. Both valid, both totally contradictory.

If you can't see the contradiction here, there's not much point continuing the conversation.

You see a contradiction between justice and love. Which is more important, to protect the vulnerable or to love others? This type of question is not new, those opposed to Jesus were fond of asking similar questions.

Quote

Matthew 22:35–40One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What it means to "love your neighbor" does not always have a simple answer. Life is messy and complicated. If a neighbor is physically assaulting another neighbor and I have the power to stop it, then I'm going to, even if this requires violence. The sole purpose of this is to stop the injustice, and it must not continue into taking vengeance. This is loving both neighbors.

Jesus did not teach simple adherence to a strict set of rules. He was not strictly a pacifist (John 2:13–16). He violated prohibitions against working on the Sabbath by healing a man on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1–6). This is a contradiction of Torah, and this is exactly the point. To Jesus Torah is not about simple adherence to rules, it's about love, and it would be evil if he did not heal (“Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”).

It's too easy to just follow rules, and this is what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of; they follow the rules to the letter of the law yet they don't love God or others. Their primary focus is self, proving their virtue. It is empty worship.

So where you see contradiction, I see Jesus challenging us to examine our core motivations, which may look different if different people. For the pacifist Jesus may ask "Are you doing this out of love, or because you don't want to get involved?" To the person breaking up a fight Jesus may ask "Are you doing this because you love your neighbors, or are you doing it because you want to be a hero?"

TL;DR - If you're looking for a comprehensive list of simple and dogmatic rules, this isn't what Jesus is about.

ETA: I should clarify something, think I may be in error. Jesus didn't contradict Torah, he contradicted what the Pharisees taught about Sabbath.

I'm not looking for a comprehensive list of simple and dogmatic rules, nor am I trying to disparage Christianity.

I'm supporting my argument that religion in general (and Christianity is no exception to this) tends to be full of 'choose your own adventure' style advice. As you mentioned the answer to a given question looks different to different people. This is why your earlier suggestion is likely doomed to failure. Additional/deeper bible study is not going to bring Christians in line with one another because two people will read the same words and come to a different conclusion. The extra study will likely just more firmly entrench differences.

For the record, I am not in agreement with much of what's been extrapolated on over the past 18 hours of scripture talk. If we're going to claim and defend the faith, we have to stop defending sin and making excuses for it, and delight in the simple truth it teaches. That can't be done by protecting earthly religious institutions and excusing sin in the body of believers as just "differences of opinion" by twisting non-negotiables into contradictions to justify our own actions or claiming that our Messiah, He who fulfills and perfects Torah and being innocent of all sin for the sake of taking the curse upon Himself to save us, was actually acting in sin and violating it or teaching something not in agreement with it. But then, that's the problem I've been speaking to from the beginning.

So where you see contradiction, I see Jesus challenging us to examine our core motivations, which may look different if different people.

It does seem contradictory to be claiming there are no contradictions in the bible and that there is one true message throughout but at the same time that the message might look different to different people.

The Catholic Church was created long before there was a New Testsment. The Bible from the time of the Council of Laodicea (c. 360) until the local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon until the Council of Rome (382).

Without reciting the entire history, the Bible as in New Testament for the ones who assembled the books and deemed it cannon was the book of the Church not a church of the Bible as you are discussing religion here.

Your entire exchange is based on the post reformation idea of the Protestant break-aways which are churches of many denominations all based upon the Bible in various forms as altered by the monarchs or former Catholic Priests (like Luther) who founded those many denominations of Protestant Christians.

My point is for the first 1,000 years of Christendom, and continuing today for the some 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, the Bible is indeed a book of our Church and not the other way around.

Therefore, Catholic theologians have certainly been debating many contradictions in the Bible for centuries but with the knowledge it was the Church that assembled the Holy Scripture and not the other way around. This is just fundamental to understanding Christian doctrine and why many modern Bible based churches that teach if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t Christian is rediculous.

Clearly the Pope who approved the Volgate (first Latin fully assembled books of what is today modern Bible) didn’t think to insert every other historical, administrative or important church document or prayer (like Creed of the Apostles) into the Bible for obvious reasons.

So the discussion appears to be based on the false premise that Christianity comes from the Bible when historially that simply isn’t the truth.

Our western and Christian traditions are based on essentially three major influences, the God of Jereseluem (which Christ and his apostles followed and is the OT), the laws of Rome preserved in Cathoic cannon law making its way into European and later American laws, and lastly the Philosophy of the Greeks from which the Romans benefited imensly and was preserved by the Catholic Church.

Trying to discuss Christianity through the narrow prism of modern evangelicals whose entire faith is based solely on a version of the Bible altered by a British monarch to fit his state religion seems a bit of a dog chasing its tail.

The Catholic Church was created long before there was a New Testsment. The Bible from the time of the Council of Laodicea (c. 360) until the local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon until the Council of Rome (382).

Without reciting the entire history, the Bible as in New Testament for the ones who assembled the books and deemed it cannon was the book of the Church not a church of the Bible as you are discussing religion here.

Your entire exchange is based on the post reformation idea of the Protestant break-aways which are churches of many denominations all based upon the Bible in various forms as altered by the monarchs or former Catholic Priests (like Luther) who founded those many denominations of Protestant Christians.

My point is for the first 1,000 years of Christendom, and continuing today for the some 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, the Bible is indeed a book of our Church and not the other way around.

Therefore, Catholic theologians have certainly been debating many contradictions in the Bible for centuries but with the knowledge it was the Church that assembled the Holy Scripture and not the other way around. This is just fundamental to understanding Christian doctrine and why many modern Bible based churches that teach if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t Christian is rediculous.

Clearly the Pope who approved the Volgate (first Latin fully assembled books of what is today modern Bible) didn’t think to insert every other historical, administrative or important church document or prayer (like Creed of the Apostles) into the Bible for obvious reasons.

So the discussion appears to be based on the false premise that Christianity comes from the Bible when historially that simply isn’t the truth.

Our western and Christian traditions are based on essentially three major influences, the God of Jereseluem (which Christ and his apostles followed and is the OT), the laws of Rome preserved in Cathoic cannon law making its way into European and later American laws, and lastly the Philosophy of the Greeks from which the Romans benefited imensly and was preserved by the Catholic Church.

Trying to discuss Christianity through the narrow prism of modern evangelicals whose entire faith is based solely on a version of the Bible altered by a British monarch to fit his state religion seems a bit of a dog chasing its tail.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction but it seems from the bolded sentence you agree that there are definitely contradictions in the Bible. Which would seem to be the very point GuitarStv was making.

As a side note, I was raised Catholic and was quite involved in the Church until age 19. I was taught the Bible was created by the Holy Spirit working through man to express the will of God. Whether the Catholic Church as an organisation was created prior to what we now know as "The Bible" or not, from my understanding what is written in the Bible is considered the "WORD OF GOD" and would take precedence over whatever the Catholic Church has to say on any particular matter.

It makes all the difference theologically and historically. Back to my original point, the Bible is a document of the Catholic Church. Sure, other versions existed in history like that of the Gnostics but it wasn’t preserved or transcribed by the Vatican through the ages so disappeared from history. The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Of course, the Old Testament we got from the Judaism which already had a history going back to Abraham.

Catholics do believe the message of the Bible to be inerrant (without error) but not the literal stories or history. Many are really alegoreis not literal history. So maybe I should say anyone who believes the Bible is literally true will find many contradictions and have trouble with science. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, defined the first scupientific method and does not find evolution contradictory to the Bible nor teaches the world is only 6,000 years old as do many Bible based Protestant churches erroneously referred to here as historically Christian.

Look at each Apostle’s different accounts of the same event of a Baptism. In Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22, God says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” But in Matthew 3:17 God says, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” So which is it? Did God say, “You are my beloved son” or “This is my beloved son?”

To someone who believes the Bible is the literal truth of God, written by God, we have a contradiction. But to the very folks who assembled the various books and decided which would be included and which would not this a minor difference in memory of each author written long after the events occurred. Again, Catholics believe the full text of the Bible, studied as a whole, provide us the revealed truth of God but not again as a literal historical account especially when it comes to the Old Testament.

Take for example this blog. If you told me your girlfriend left you and you miss her so much your heart is beating 100 times a minute when you think of her. In another post you say you are in good health. Which is it? Terribly high blood pressure or good health? Well that depends on whether I understand you were not speaking literally but instead figuratively.

The schism in the Catholic Church began when Martin Luther born in 1483, a priest who wanted to marry a nun, decided interpreting the Bible was not best left to the experts but anyone could make his own interpretation. Thus we now have 40,000 Protestant faiths mostly all Bible based (exceptions are Mormons, Jahova Witness and others who added their own Scriptures) all arguing over true Christianity. Of course, corruption in the Catholic Church combined with the advent of the printing press made the Reformstion not only possible but to flourish eventually forcing the Catholic Church to begin translating the Bible into the lengua franca.

A wonderful book, by the way, on the beginning of Western thought going back long before Christ is Cahill’s book, “the Gift of the Jews.” He argues Abraham came out of the desert to form the first religion with a taught beginning and end to everything including the earth. Prior to Judaism, most world religion was cyclical and saw spiritual beings as coming and going like cycles in nature itself.

When you say 'he Bible is a document of the Catholic Church', I'm entirely certain that I understand what you mean. The old testament of the bible was written by Jewish people well before the Catholic church ever existed, and large portions of it were cribbed from other earlier religions and folklore (see Epic of Gilgamesh for example). There have been many alterations and edits to the bible over the years, so you could certainly argue that the Catholic church has been heavily involved in the development of the modern bible, but they most certainly aren't the source. Or are you only talking about the new testament stuff?

When you say 'he Bible is a document of the Catholic Church', I'm entirely certain that I understand what you mean. The old testament of the bible was written by Jewish people well before the Catholic church ever existed, and large portions of it were cribbed from other earlier religions and folklore (see Epic of Gilgamesh for example). There have been many alterations and edits to the bible over the years, so you could certainly argue that the Catholic church has been heavily involved in the development of the modern bible, but they most certainly aren't the source. Or are you only talking about the new testament stuff?

So I read this as meaning Gary123 is saying their view is that the bible as it currently exists is something assembled by a group of human beings (who can make mistakes or write contradictory things) rather than something directly assembled by god (who presumably cannot). I certainly know people who adhere to each of those views. The former has no problem accepting contradictions in the bible. The latter will come up with explanations for why apparent contradictions are not contradictions.

[The safety net you mention is the antithesis of capitalism. It's giving goods and services without an exchange of work. I

Well, in the example I gave in my previous post about the disabled kid . . . society takes care of him. He's not left to die because of his inability to work. So, sometimes removing capitalism means that those who would otherwise die, don't.[/quote]

Is insurance socialist? Or is it just prudent?

John Rawls, in "A Theory of Justice" came up with a way to evaluate a situation in away that would expose biases inherent in our own situation. (I.e., smart people think one way of organizing society is right, strong people another, healthy ones have their own view different from unhealthy, etc.)

Basically, imagine everyone is a spirit negotiating how things will be run after we're all born into the earth. We don't know whether our parents will be rich or poor, whether we'll be strong or weak, smart or dumb, etc.

In that situation, the rational thing to do would be to set up society so that if we had the right mix we could greatly succeed, but if we didn't, we would still be ok. We would want to set up a social insurance to protect our interests.

Taxpayer funded social safety nets are exactly that. Insurance against shit happening, whether it's before you're born or afterwards.

[The safety net you mention is the antithesis of capitalism. It's giving goods and services without an exchange of work. I

Well, in the example I gave in my previous post about the disabled kid . . . society takes care of him. He's not left to die because of his inability to work. So, sometimes removing capitalism means that those who would otherwise die, don't.

Is insurance socialist? Or is it just prudent?

Generally, insurance is a private contract between a company and an individual. If insurance is provided by the state to bring the poor up to a higher standard of life, I'd argue that it's a kind of roundabout socialism.

John Rawls, in "A Theory of Justice" came up with a way to evaluate a situation in away that would expose biases inherent in our own situation. (I.e., smart people think one way of organizing society is right, strong people another, healthy ones have their own view different from unhealthy, etc.)

Basically, imagine everyone is a spirit negotiating how things will be run after we're all born into the earth. We don't know whether our parents will be rich or poor, whether we'll be strong or weak, smart or dumb, etc.

In that situation, the rational thing to do would be to set up society so that if we had the right mix we could greatly succeed, but if we didn't, we would still be ok. We would want to set up a social insurance to protect our interests.

Taxpayer funded social safety nets are exactly that. Insurance against shit happening, whether it's before you're born or afterwards.

The thing is, taxpayer funded social safety nets are quite different than private insurance. They are provided by the people for the people. The goal of the taxpayer funded safety net is not to make money, it's to provide for the people.

It makes all the difference theologically and historically. Back to my original point, the Bible is a document of the Catholic Church. Sure, other versions existed in history like that of the Gnostics but it wasn’t preserved or transcribed by the Vatican through the ages so disappeared from history. The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Of course, the Old Testament we got from the Judaism which already had a history going back to Abraham.

Catholics do believe the message of the Bible to be inerrant (without error) but not the literal stories or history. Many are really alegoreis not literal history. So maybe I should say anyone who believes the Bible is literally true will find many contradictions and have trouble with science. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, defined the first scupientific method and does not find evolution contradictory to the Bible nor teaches the world is only 6,000 years old as do many Bible based Protestant churches erroneously referred to here as historically Christian.

Look at each Apostle’s different accounts of the same event of a Baptism. In Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22, God says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” But in Matthew 3:17 God says, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” So which is it? Did God say, “You are my beloved son” or “This is my beloved son?”

To someone who believes the Bible is the literal truth of God, written by God, we have a contradiction. But to the very folks who assembled the various books and decided which would be included and which would not this a minor difference in memory of each author written long after the events occurred. Again, Catholics believe the full text of the Bible, studied as a whole, provide us the revealed truth of God but not again as a literal historical account especially when it comes to the Old Testament.

Take for example this blog. If you told me your girlfriend left you and you miss her so much your heart is beating 100 times a minute when you think of her. In another post you say you are in good health. Which is it? Terribly high blood pressure or good health? Well that depends on whether I understand you were not speaking literally but instead figuratively.

The schism in the Catholic Church began when Martin Luther born in 1483, a priest who wanted to marry a nun, decided interpreting the Bible was not best left to the experts but anyone could make his own interpretation. Thus we now have 40,000 Protestant faiths mostly all Bible based (exceptions are Mormons, Jahova Witness and others who added their own Scriptures) all arguing over true Christianity. Of course, corruption in the Catholic Church combined with the advent of the printing press made the Reformstion not only possible but to flourish eventually forcing the Catholic Church to begin translating the Bible into the lengua franca.

A wonderful book, by the way, on the beginning of Western thought going back long before Christ is Cahill’s book, “the Gift of the Jews.” He argues Abraham came out of the desert to form the first religion with a taught beginning and end to everything including the earth. Prior to Judaism, most world religion was cyclical and saw spiritual beings as coming and going like cycles in nature itself.

I can understand that. What I can't understand is how the Catholics figure out what the real message is?

Take the example you give regarding being in good health and also having a heart beat of 100 per minute. So if someone believes the message is I am in good health and another believes the 100 beats a minute is a clear indication of ill health how do we know who is right?

From my experience Catholics are not much different to any other brand of Christian. They take the easy way out by believing what they want to believe and putting everything else down to "allegory".

Trying to discuss Christianity through the narrow prism of modern evangelicals whose entire faith is based solely on a version of the Bible altered by a British monarch to fit his state religion seems a bit of a dog chasing its tail.

There are many modern Bible translations used by evangelicals that are not based on anything other than the original manuscripts.

The guy up above gave a shout out to the Gnostics. Just so you know, a number of the Gnostic "scriptures" were rediscovered and have been translated from the Coptic. It's an interesting spirituality/theology. "Gnosis" is knowledge (as in "knowing" God). The concept is one of insight, similar to Eastern enlightenment. So instead of Jesus dying for your sins, the Gnostic journey is one of personal development and connecting with the divine spark within each individual.